Yes it does. Of course, such a result ruins Salvador's precious ID notions. So he goes around saying anything he can think of which cast doubt on the results. Usually these statements fall into two categories:

1 The fitness function musta snuck in the answer.

This is simple for him to demonstrate--ask for the code then show how to the code is flawed.

Well, in principle it would be simple to demonstrate, if it were true. Problem is, it's not true. That was the purpose of Dave Thomas's design challenge. He wrote a program to use GA's to answer a problem, and asked Salvador and company to figure out what the answer would be from the source code. Salvador gave 4 answers, none of which were right.

If man has no ultimate purpose other than to exist, then how do we avoid absolute despair in life? How do we truly enjoy or even experience anything?

***NOTICE*** Some comments will need to be moderated prior to posting. If your comment does not show up, give it time because it could possibly be in the moderating process

If I had a nickel for every fundy idiot who said "If you don't believe in god, how come you don't kill everybody / have unprotected sex with strangers on the sidewalk / torture your enemies/kill yourself / punch little old ladies / blah blah blah.

Jay Richards is a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle. For more information about intelligent design theory, visit Discovery Institute's web site.

In this scientific age, it is impossible to quarantine the claims of science. They invariably leak into other cultural domains. So we should attend to what scientists tell us. Sometimes it is quite important.

If man has no ultimate purpose other than to exist, then how do we avoid absolute despair in life? How do we truly enjoy or even experience anything?

***NOTICE*** Some comments will need to be moderated prior to posting. If your comment does not show up, give it time because it could possibly be in the moderating process

If I had a nickel for every fundy idiot who said "If you don't believe in god, how come you don't kill everybody / have unprotected sex with strangers on the sidewalk / torture your enemies/kill yourself / punch little old ladies / blah blah blah.

He doesn't want to talk about it. I tried to leave a reply and it never saw the light of day. Looks like little Joel has learned a lesson at UD.

In fact, I tried to comment a couple weeks ago at Please_pretty_please,_stoptryingtoreasonwithme.com and was told that if I wanted my comments to appear, I would have to be nicer.

If man has no ultimate purpose other than to exist, then how do we avoid absolute despair in life? How do we truly enjoy or even experience anything?

How are those two ideas related?

While I’m confident there is selection pressure against those who tend to think in these suicidal/homicidal terms, there are many reasons why “simply existing” can be a blast!

There is intrinsic joy in many things we experience—falling in love, having children, personal accomplishment. Taking something disorderly and putting it in order.

Depressed people cannot see the intrinsic joys of life, but that is typically a temporary condition.

There are, however, a number of people who are not able to be satisfied with an 80 year run of being “regular.” For whatever reason they must believe they are “more special” than the other 6 billion humans. Sometimes these people strive for posterity—“people will always remember my name after I’m gone.” Sometimes it is striving to be “more special” to God in an eternal heaven.

I have always suspected this comes from our mating behavior. To survive and reproduce we needed to be noticed above the other possible mates. We want to be the Alpha, to get the best possible mate.

That makes Joel’s argument more like: “If I can’t be ‘more special’ than other men on the planet, if my existence is just like everyone else’s, then why go on?”

Doesn’t the experiment actually demonstrate evolution is able to produce very complex results that have the appearance of design, though it takes many generations (i.e.: a long time) to make it happen?

The concept is called logical depth. It was developed formally by Charles Bennett:

Quote

Some mathematical and natural objects (a random sequence, a sequence of zeros, a perfect crystal, a gas) are intuitively trivial, while others (e.g. the human body, the digits of &#960;) contain internal evidence of a nontrivial causal history.

We formalize this distinction by defining an object’s “logical depth” as the time required by a standard universal Turing machine to generate it from an input that is algorithmically random (i.e. Martin-Lof random). This definition of depth is shown to be reasonably machine-independent, as well as obeying a slow-growth law: deep objects cannot be quickly produced from shallow ones by any deterministic process, nor with much probability by a probabilistic process, but can be produced slowly.

Next we apply depth to the physical problem of “self-organization,” inquiring in particular under what conditions (e.g. noise, irreversibility, spatial and other symmetries of the initial conditions and equations of motion) statistical-mechanical model systems can imitate computers well enough to undergo unbounded increase of depth in the limit of infinite space and time.

While antievolutionists will sometimes talk about algorithmic information theory (which is concerned with the size of the minimal program and input string needed to obtain a particular output string), I have yet to see one discuss logical depth, much less discuss it coherently.

Once you've got that, then you can move on to such things as thermodynamic depth.

Big words, small print. It makes my brain hurt.

Two questions:

1. Logical Depth simply means that if one looks at a complex system the complexity of the system is a direct indication of the time required to produce the system. Is this substantially correct?

2. Thermodynamic Depth indicates that complex systems leave a "paper trail" as they become more complex and in complex systems there is evidence remaining of their less complex states. Again, is this substancially correct?

One week’s inactivity is really too early for a full-blown analysis of who’s not standing next to whom on the Kremlin, but the game is tempting so here goes: could O'Leary have changed a pattern of behavior in her latest posts? Many of her essays lately appear to have been double-posted on her website ( http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/ ) and on UD (e.g., on the 20th she posted at both her website and at UD on both "many universes" and on past uses of the term “darwinist”). On the 23rd, she posted three essays on her website that would be completely in character for her on UD, but which haven’t appeared there yet.

Her new posts on her own site continue to contain a large component of dreck. Explaining why she deletes comments: “To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors.” (Apparently, she reserves that privilege for her own essays.) She also has a comment about an article by Dan Flynn, in which he argues that darwinists tolerate neither dissent nor examination of their assumptions while Idists have no positive evidence backing up their claims. Flynn concludes, “Supporters of Intelligent Design demote faith to science. Darwinists elevate science to faith. Both camps would be best served by staying within their own realm.” Denyse comments “Such insufferable smugness about the very nature of the universe and its knowability! - and, worse luck, all in defense of a merely silly idea like neo-Darwinism” (Insufferable smugness about knowability?? Silly idea like neo-Darwinism?? Projection! Projection!

She presents an uninformed statement from Tony Snow, “Here's how to make both sides happy: Let science teachers tell kids that science is a matter of inspired guesswork, not of invincible decree. ....... Also, let students know that a sizeable number of scientists believe in a Designer, since science involves a quest to discover and decode universal design.” and she adds, “But, like so many media types, he does not appear able to grapple with the possibility that Darwinism may actually be an incorrect theory of origins.” Science is in fact a lot more than “inspired guesswork” (has the man never heard of testing hypotheses?). That aside, I know that I was taught (and now I teach my students) that we should keep questioning everything, and that science deals in refutations, so all scientific conclusions are the best approximations so far available and should be considered tentative and subject to revision. I don’t think I’m unusual in that. Whenever the topic comes up, I try to emphasize that evolution is not a complete, correct, final answer. However, I have only seen valid criticisms of evoloution arise from within the academic mainstream: the contributions from the ID camp and the Jonathan Wells & Denyse O’Leary’s of the world are “shrill screed” of misunderstandings (Denyse’s specialty), misrepresentations (J. Wells’ specialty), and a mishmash of nonsense, and so the only attention they earn is scornful.

After a brief visit to UD while drinking mango-flavored vodka, I came over here to suggest a drinking game where you do a shot everytime they say "Richard Dawkins". It occurs to me as I write this, however, that such a game would almost certainly lead to fatalities.

After a brief visit to UD while drinking mango-flavored vodka, I came over here to suggest a drinking game where you do a shot everytime they say "Richard Dawkins". It occurs to me as I write this, however, that such a game would almost certainly lead to fatalities.

--------------"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

I know, that's what everyone says at first, but it's actually pretty yummy. Combine that with the fact that a fifth of Burnett's vodka at the ABC store is $6.35, and mission control says all systems are go for launch.

...The brash chemist, who conducts independent research from his houseboat, has infuriated peers by refusing to "play by the rules of Socrates, Bacon, and Galileo," calling test results as he sees them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary....

Looks like you're moonlighting as a writer for the Onion Richard :> ....more

Quote

Despite his innumerable achievements, Hapner faces many experts who remain skeptical and have even declared his findings corrupt, irrational, irresponsible, and unscientific.

"It's true that I've been condemned and ridiculed by the world's most prominent chemists, as well as by a good number of amateur hobbyists," Hapner said as he rubbed a balloon on his head to demonstrate a basic principle of hydrodynamics. "But then, wasn't Einstein ridiculed when he unveiled his theory of relativity, or Copernicus when he posited that the Earth revolved around the sun? True, I have since proved them both wrong, but at least they took risks."

The nuttiness of the BeheDembskiNelsonWellsBerlinski-tards of the world, does in fact call into question all scientific findings to the extent that IF their pseudoscience was true it would prove not just Einstein and Copernicus wrong but ALL science wrong.

Now of course they would try to deny this fact, since they know themselves and the whole world knows they do not have the 'Intelligence' to prove either Einstein or Copernicus wrong (except AFD who thinks they are all wrong...snicker) but they ARE in effect saying that the METHOD that Einstein and Copernicus used, is invalid.

What if Einstein and Copernicus had said "Hmmm ....X looks designed and cannot be simplified ...thus we call it an artifact of Y"..which (apparently) is the Gospel of John stated magicmatically or *insert favorite deity* or Little Extraterrestrial Creatures which have not EVER been seen..... except by UFO crazies.

Taking their new 'scientific method' to its logical conclusion they do in fact end up in AFD's position....an insanity impervious to reason and thus totally irrelevant....hence the desperation of trying to connect Hitler and Darwin...they should have stopped when they were ahead .....Hitler was a leader who used religious fervor and martyrdom to drive his mania.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

O'Leary's back screeching about the Vatican and Coyne. Not mentioned is the fact he's undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer and (as i understand it) is why he stepped down.

It's hard to work out exactly what the point of the article is, the title "The Vatican and the Astronomer: Why George Coyne had to go" is the bit that makes most sense! The rest seems like a random selection of quotes and buzz-words.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

August 27, 2006The Vatican and the Astronomer: Why George Coyne had to go

From what I can determine from recent pronouncements, the Vatican is not backing off the process of evicting Darwinism (”evolutionism”) as an innocuous belief system that a good Catholic can accept. Here’s Cardinal Schoenborn recently proposing an evolution debate:

That first sentence--I had to read it three times to figure out what she was trying to say.

The second is a bit more complex and even more disturbing. It also occurs much more often. Christians willingly place themselves in the ghetto due to a misunderstanding in personal piety, an unwillingness to engage in difficult conversations, because it makes life much easier, and because of legitimate fears.

emphasis mine.

Hey, Joel! Why don't you come out and talk to us sometime? Joel? Joel??? oel...oel...el...el...el...l...l...l....

The sense I got from DOL's screed was that Coyne -- and his successor -- should keep their views to themselves, and stop making comments on matters outside their field of study anyway. Another person suffering from irony-deficiency.

The first is easy to explain; if you do not like Christianity but realize you cannot convert people away from it, then simply place them on a “reservation” where they can practice their faith all they want, it is just out of the public eye. Think about it, a few hundred years ago the resurrection of Christ was viewed as historical just like the Roman invasion of Gaul. Both were viewed as equally true, happening at a certain time and place in history. Today, the resurrection is viewed as a personal belief but not one essential to understanding history. The resurrection has been privatized. We sit here and say, “But you do not want to force your religion on anyone.” It is true that we cannot force a person to convert to Christianity, but if the resurrection was a true historical event, why shouldn’t we want it taught?

Where exactly does he want this taught?

Quote

Wesley R. Elsberry Posted on Aug. 27 2006,13:12The sense I got from DOL's screed was that Coyne -- and his successor -- should keep their views to themselves, and stop making comments on matters outside their field of study anyway. Another person suffering from irony-deficiency.

Wes, I got an SQL error page which showed your password as a 3 letter word.

You may want to change it

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

It is becoming clearer- evolutionism co-opted & twisted the work of Creationists- Blyth for Natural Selection and Gregor Mendel in genetics- in order to get their PoV across to the masses.

I wonder if the NCSE will let people know about this?

Great work Sal, Charlie and John D.!

Comment by Joseph — August 27, 2006 @ 9:17 am

Quote

#

I am amazed at the amount of energy ID Creationists invest into attacking Darwin. I suppose that Darwin is of interest to historians of science, but from from the point of view of a scientist, it seems distinctly odd.

I guess this relates to the way that ID Creationists seem to look at everything from a religious point of view. I’ve noticed that they like to refer to evolution as “Darwinism” (a term that I’ve never heard used by any biologist), as if evolution were some sort of competing religion with Darwin as a god or prophet. Indeed, the post refers to Darwin’s “followers” and calls him a “deity.” So perhaps they imagine that they can somehow undermine evolution by attacking Darwin.

To a scientist, this sounds a bit ridiculous. Scientists like to give credit where it is due (because they hope to get recognition for their own work), but the status of evolutionary theory today doesn’t in the slightest rest on the authority of Darwin, and most evolutionary scientists aren’t actually all that interested in Darwin himself. If Darwin were generally agreed to be a plagiarist and an all-around Bad Guy, nothing would change, any more than the recognition that Newton was a generally unpleasant fellow who stole credit from Leibnitz and Hooke has altered the usage of Newton’s Laws of Motion in physics. Despite his historical significance, modern evolutionary theory rests on the contributions of thousands of scientists who have confirmed and extended the theory.

If Darwin were generally agreed to be a plagiarist and an all-around Bad Guy, nothing would change, any more than the recognition that Newton was a generally unpleasant fellow who stole credit from Leibnitz and Hooke

but ...but...He WAS 'an all-around Bad Guy' ......why he was resposible for Hitler AND Global Warming.

In the first case Hitler mentioned 'god' thousands of times in his speaches so Darwin was OBVIOUSLY to blame .......NOT 'god'.

And in the second case IF Darwin WAS right then Global Warming MUST be right because those if those pesky scientists WERE right about Darwin then 'god' better show up quick before all the Oil runs out and all the ice melts.

Look don't ask difficult questions, you know it makes sense, you can just feel it.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Well, of course. Just try and name me any Christians who are Supreme Court justices, Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, heads of major corporations, wealthy writers, etc. There aren't any! It's just terrible what we secular humanists are doing to them Christians.

Oh, incidentally, to the long list of subjects of which Joel is pathetically ignorant, we can now add Native American history:

Quote

When the United States decided that they could not truly beat the Native American peoples, they developed a new strategy of warfare; move them onto controlled ranges. In all reality, these were “prairie ghettos,” meant to subdue and control an enemy so that this enemy could no longer pose a threat. The Native Americans were allowed to “do their thing,” practice their religion, hunt their animals, keep their traditions alive so long as it was done in the private realm of the reservation.

Of course he neatly ignores the concerted efforts on the part of the Christian US Govt. to stamp out Native American religion, but this would conflict with his laughable attempts to portray American Christians as some kind of put-upon oppressed minority.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

If my memory doesn’t fail, it was Darwin who started to propose that biological life forms were NOT the result of design, but the result of unguided *natural* process. So ID didn’t attack Darwin first; Darwin attacked the design hypothesis first.

We're going to have to adjust that ID ppy (papers per year) number now. Let's see: roughly 2 papers (one rescinded) in 3000(?) years. That works out to 0.0003 papers per year! Surely the fall of the Church of Darwin is upon us.